FCC Web Documents citing 1.730

as compiled by hallikainen.com/FccRules on 2012 07 01

• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-860A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-860A1.pdf
  • in a subsequent order. We also recommend that the Commission promptly issue a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking regarding customer retention marketing practices. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Kris Anne Monteith Chief, Enforcement Bureau Formal Complaint, File No. EB-08-MD-002 (filed Feb. 11, 2008) (``Complaint''). 47 U.S.C. � 208. Before the Complaint was filed, the Enforcement Bureau issued a letter order, pursuant to section 1.730 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.730, granting Complainants' request to file a Complaint against Verizon alleging violations of section 222 of the Act on the Commission's Accelerated Docket. See Complaint at Ex. T. See, e.g., Joint Statement, File No. EB-08-MD-002 (filed Feb. 29, 2009) (``Joint Statement'') at 3-4, � 4. The Defendants are: Verizon California Inc.; Verizon Delaware
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-159A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-159A1.pdf
  • in local telephone service. Similarly, today's action ensures that consumers in all areas of the country reap the benefits of competition in the form of lower prices, innovative services and more choice. Bright House Networks, LLC v. Verizon California, Inc., Recommended Decision, File No. EB-08-MD-002, 2008 WL 1722033 (Enf. Bur., rel. Apr. 11, 2008) (``Recommended Decision''). See 47 C.F.R. � 1.730(i) (``If parties to the proceeding file comments to the recommended decision, the Commission will issue its decision adopting or modifying the recommended decision within 30 days of the filing of the final comments.'') Formal Complaint, File No. EB-08-MD-002 (filed Feb. 11, 2008) (``Complaint''). 47 U.S.C. � 208. 47 U.S.C. � 222(b). 47 U.S.C. � 201(b). See Count III of the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2245A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2245A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2245A1.txt
  • 208, and 271, and the authority delegated in sections 0.111, 0.311, and 1.115 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 0.111, 0.311, and 1.115, that AT&T's application for review IS DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE, and that the captioned proceeding IS TERMINATED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Alexander P. Starr Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division Enforcement Bureau 47 U.S.C. � 208. 47 C.F.R. � 1.730. AT&T also originally named BellSouth Corporation and BellSouth Telecommunications, Inc. as defendants. These parties subsequently were dismissed from the litigation. 47 U.S.C. � 271. AT&T Corp. v. BellSouth Corp., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 14 FCC Rcd 8515 (Com. Car. Bur. 1999). Federal Communications Commission DA 00-2245 Federal Communications Commission DA 00-2245 0 1 2 E F [ \ � 0
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2221A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2221A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2221A1.txt
  • Commission's rules, the Universal Service Administrative Company (USAC) submitted the following projections of demand and administrative expenses for the fourth quarter of 2002: ($ millions) Program Projected Program Support Admin. Expenses Application Of Interest Income Application of Periodic True-Ups Total Program Collection Schools and Libraries 553.260 9.240 (11.574) 1.050 551.976 Rural Health Care 8.604 1.004 (0.071) (0.083) 9.454 High-Cost 856.648 1.730 (0.539) (16.498) 841.341 Low Income 181.278 0.691 (0.420) 2.097 183.646 TOTAL 1599.79 12.665 (12.604) (13.434) 1586.417 The Universal Service Administrative Company (USAC) has therefore projected that program demand and administrative expenses for the fourth quarter of 2002 will be approximately $1.586417 billion. USAC also has submitted estimated end-user telecommunications revenues of $18.487996 for April through June 2002 based on information
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-860A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-860A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-860A1.txt
  • in a subsequent order. We also recommend that the Commission promptly issue a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking regarding customer retention marketing practices. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Kris Anne Monteith Chief, Enforcement Bureau Formal Complaint, File No. EB-08-MD-002 (filed Feb. 11, 2008) (``Complaint''). 47 U.S.C. � 208. Before the Complaint was filed, the Enforcement Bureau issued a letter order, pursuant to section 1.730 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.730, granting Complainants' request to file a Complaint against Verizon alleging violations of section 222 of the Act on the Commission's Accelerated Docket. See Complaint at Ex. T. See, e.g., Joint Statement, File No. EB-08-MD-002 (filed Feb. 29, 2009) (``Joint Statement'') at 3-4, � 4. The Defendants are: Verizon California Inc.; Verizon Delaware
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-29A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-29A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-29A1.txt
  • not conclude that SWBT's EEL provisioning process runs afoul of the rules set forth in our Supplemental Order Clarification without further evidence that such process cannot be accomplished simply, quickly and without an increased risk of disconnection. We note, however, that e.spire states in its comments that it has initiated a possible enforcement action by requesting, pursuant to Commission Rule 1.730(b), to begin pre-filing settlement negotiations with SWBT, claiming that SWBT has violated the Commission's rules on EELs provisioning. If it is determined on a more developed record that SWBT has indeed violated our UNE rules, we will, in that instance, take the appropriate enforcement action. Checklist Item 4 - Unbundled Local Loops Background Section 271(c)(2)(B)(iv) of the Act, item 4
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-78A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-78A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-78A1.txt
  • FCC Rcd at 22610, � 278. 47 C.F.R. � 1.735 (d). See Appendix A, at � 1.721(a)(8). We note that the method of serving the pre-complaint filing letter remains the same, i.e., by certified letter. BellSouth AD Petition at 9. Second Report & Order, 13 FCC Rcd at 17032, � 27. BellSouth AD Petition at 9, quoting 47 C.F.R. � 1.730(b) (emphasis added). See Part III(D)(4), infra. First Report and Order, 12 FCC Rcd at 22501, � 4. For example, from November 1999 (when the Commission's Enforcement Bureau began) until February 15, 2001, the number of pending complaint matters dropped from approximately 174 to approximately 38, and only about 16 of the original 174 remain pending. 47 C.F.R. � 1.724(d) (emphasis
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-10A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-10A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-10A1.txt
  • date. * * * * * 41. Section 1.115 is amended by revising paragraph (3)(4) to read as follows: � 1.115 Application for review of action taken pursuant to delegated authority. * * * * * (4) Applications for review of final staff decisions issued on delegated authority in formal complaint proceedings on the Enforcement Bureau's Accelerated Docket (see, e.g., �1.730) shall be filed within 15 days of public notice of the decision, as that date is defined in �1.4(b). These applications for review oppositions and replies in Accelerated Docket proceedings shall be served on parties to the proceeding by hand or facsimile transmission. * * * * * 42. Section 1.221 is amended by revising paragraphs (b) and (c) to
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-43A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-43A1.txt
  • discuss the U.S. commitments under the GATS. 12 FCC Rcd at 23902-4, �� 25-8. 118 See Foreign Participation Order, 12 FCC Rcd at 24023, � 295. 119 See, e.g., Centennial Petition at 6, 10 (asserting that Am�rica M�vil, a foreign corporate entity, has not been conditioned by a decade of operating under the 1996 Act). 120 See 47 C.F.R. � 1.730. 121 GTE/PRTC Order, 14 FCC Rcd at 3134, � 28. Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-43 20 F. International Dominant Carrier Regulation 43. In the Foreign Participation Order, the Commission established rules to identify instances of potential competitive harm by U.S. market entry of a foreign carrier and to guard against them. Under these rules, we classify a U.S.-international carrier as
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-159A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-159A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-159A1.txt
  • in local telephone service. Similarly, today's action ensures that consumers in all areas of the country reap the benefits of competition in the form of lower prices, innovative services and more choice. Bright House Networks, LLC v. Verizon California, Inc., Recommended Decision, File No. EB-08-MD-002, 2008 WL 1722033 (Enf. Bur., rel. Apr. 11, 2008) (``Recommended Decision''). See 47 C.F.R. � 1.730(i) (``If parties to the proceeding file comments to the recommended decision, the Commission will issue its decision adopting or modifying the recommended decision within 30 days of the filing of the final comments.'') Formal Complaint, File No. EB-08-MD-002 (filed Feb. 11, 2008) (``Complaint''). 47 U.S.C. � 208. 47 U.S.C. � 222(b). 47 U.S.C. � 201(b). See Count III of the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-201A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-201A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-201A1.txt
  • pending complaint proceeding. Information submitted, as well as relevant legal authorities, must be current and updated as necessary and in a timely manner at any time before a decision is rendered on the merits of the complaint. (7) Parties seeking expedited resolution of their complaint may request acceptance on the Enforcement Bureau's Accelerated Docket pursuant to the procedures at section 1.730 of the Commission's rules. (b) Copies to be Filed. The complainant shall file an original copy of the complaint, accompanied by the correct fee, in accordance with part 1, subpart G (see � 1.1106) and, on the same day: (1) File three copies of the complaint with the Office of the Commission Secretary; (2) Serve two copies on the Market
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-201A1_Rcd.pdf
  • Joint Comments at 4�7; OIC Comments at 48�49; PIC Comments at 70�71; DISH Network Reply at 23; TIA Reply at 18�19. 493See, e.g., Ad Hoc Comments at 27; Google Comments at 88; Google-Verizon Joint Comments at 4�7; NJ Rate Counsel Comments at 11�12; PK et al.Comments at 71; Qwest Comments at 51; Microsoft Reply at 13. 494See 47 C.F.R. � 1.730. Furthermore, for good cause, pursuant to 47 C.F.R. � 1.3, the Commission may shorten the deadlines or otherwise revise the procedures herein to expedite the adjudication of complaints. 17988 Federal Communications Commission FCC 10-201 facilitate prompt decision-making, when possible we will resolve open Internet formal complaints at the bureau level, rather than the Commission level.495 C. FCC Initiated Actions 160.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-151A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-151A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-151A1.txt
  • legal counsel). For example, there is no filing fee associated with filing an informal complaint and the filing can be done by the average consumer. In contrast, there is a filing fee associated with the formal complaint process and, in general, parties are represented by counsel. See Accessibility NPRM, 26 FCC Rcd at 3186, � 141 n.411; 47 C.F.R. � 1.730 (permitting a complainant to seek authorization from the Enforcement Bureau for placement on the bureau's accelerated docket under certain narrow circumstances). Section 255 Report and Order, 16 FCC Rcd at 6475-76, �� 143-146. 47 U.S.C. � 618(a)(3)(B). , supra. Accessibility NPRM, 26 FCC Rcd at 3183, � 132. 47 U.S.C. � 618(a)(3)(B)(i). See 47 U.S.C. � 619(c). See Section 255
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-161A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-161A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-161A1.txt
  • Reply at 5. USA Coalition Mobility Fund NPRM Reply at 15. See, e.g., 47 C.F.R. � 20.12. Roaming Second Report and Order, 26 FCC Rcd at 5449-50, para. 77. As described in the roaming proceeding, Accelerated Docket procedures, including pre-complaint mediation, are among the various dispute resolution procedures available with respect to data roaming disputes. See id., 47 C.F.R. � 1.730. Mobility Fund NPRM, 25 FCC Rcd at 14,729, para. 38; 47 U.S.C. � 254(b)(3). Mobility Fund NPRM at 14,729, para. 38. Id. AT&T Mobility Fund NPRM Comments at 15; Sprint Mobility Fund NPRM Comments at 9; T-Mobile Mobility Fund NPRM Comments at 12. Greenlining Mobility Fund NPRM Comments at 11; ITTA Mobility Fund NPRM Comments at 14; Sprint Mobility Fund
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-188A1_Rcd.pdf
  • 700 MHz Band.186In addition, Vulcan proposes that this condition apply only to new device offerings by AT&T, "beginning as early as 6 months after the transaction closes and fully implemented two years following the close of the transaction."187Vulcan also states that to preserve future interoperability and protect Lower A Block licenses from potential interference, the Commission 184See 47 C.F.R. � 1.730.Furthermore, for good cause, pursuant to 47 C.F.R. � 1.3, the Commission may shorten the deadlines or otherwise revise the procedures herein to expedite the adjudication of complaints. 185SeeCellular South Petition to Deny at 5-6, 19; RTG Petition to Deny at 19; RTG Reply Comments at 7; RCA Petition to Deny at 12; King Street Petition to Condition Grant at 5;
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-37A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-37A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-37A1.txt
  • that in those instances where consumer and wireless devices have a relatively short life cycle in the marketplace, ``the Committee does not expect the Commission to require retrofitting of such equipment that is already in the market''). 47 C.F.R. �� 1.720 - 1.736. See also 47 C.F.R. � 6.21. 47 C.F.R. � 1.721. 47 C.F.R. � 1.729. 47 C.F.R. � 1.730. These modifications include deleting references to provisions that are not relevant to consumer-filed complaints in the accessibility context (e.g., provisions relating to complaints filed under Section 271 of the Act), as well as to ``rocket docket'' procedures. Because the CVAA requires the Commission to address informal complaints within 180 days of filing, and because our accelerated docket procedures were designed
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-52A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-52A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-52A1.txt
  • a controversy or removing uncertainty'' and the potential use of this vehicle to address data roaming controversies therefore does not require PRA approval. See 47 U.S.C. � 209. Section 1.722 of the Commission's rules, which addresses the recovery of damages in a complaint proceeding, is not applicable to data roaming complaints. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.722. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.730. See T-Mobile Comments at 20; SouthernLINC Reply Comments at 28; SouthernLINC Oct. 21, 2010 Ex Parte at 12-13; see also Bright House Comments at 14 (urging the Commission to adopt an accelerated process for roaming disputes); BendBroadband Reply Comments at 5 (supporting an expedited resolution process for roaming complaints). Of course, at any time following the submission of the final
• http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/fcc99181.pdf http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/fcc99181.txt http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/fcc99181.wp
  • FCC Rcd at 17024, 10. Federal Communications Commission FCC 99-181 64 Bureau's Enforcement Division.308 Where practicable, such complaint and request may be submitted to the Commission by any reasonable means. The filing must include at a minimum: (1) the information described in sections 1.721-1.724 of our rules and (2) a representation by the complainant that the conditions specified in subsection 1.730 have been met. Complaints accepted for accelerated dispute resolution will be promptly forwarded by the Commission to the named manufacturer or service provider, which shall be called on to answer the complaint in 15 days or such shorter time as the staff may prescribe. Commission staff may, in its discretion, require the complainant and defendant to appear before it, via
• http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/fcc01029.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/fcc01029.pdf http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/fcc01029.txt
  • not conclude that SWBT's EEL provisioning process runs afoul of the rules set forth in our Supplemental Order Clarification without further evidence that such process cannot be accomplished simply, quickly and without an increased risk of disconnection. We note, however, that e.spire states in its comments that it has initiated a possible enforcement action by requesting, pursuant to Commission Rule 1.730(b), to begin pre-filing settlement negotiations with SWBT, claiming that SWBT has violated the Commission's rules on EELs provisioning. If it is determined on a more developed record that SWBT has indeed violated our UNE rules, we will, in that instance, take the appropriate enforcement action. Checklist Item 4 - Unbundled Local Loops Background Section 271(c)(2)(B)(iv) of the Act, item 4
• http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Wireless/Comments/fcc98055/210090-3.pdf
  • within three days of the answer to respond to affirmative defenses, (given the complexity of the "readily achievable" standard). Indeed, no response should be required to affirmative defenses. Rather, the validity of the affirmative defenses should be resolved through the complaint proceeding itself. As suggested above, records must be maintained and produced if the complaint process is to work. Section 1.730(h) should make it clear that complainants have an absolute right to such documentary materials in the Section 255 process. Finally, Section 1.733 rules need to be modified so that they do not place an unreasonable burden on disabled individuals, and so that the critical transcripts and recordings are themselves accessible. IV. CONCLUSION. AFR's Comments have focused on areas where it
• http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Wireless/Orders/1999/fcc99022.pdf http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Wireless/Orders/1999/fcc99022.txt http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Wireless/Orders/1999/fcc99022.wp
  • against GTE. PCIA Comments at 3. We note that issues regarding the charges that LECs may permissibly impose on paging carriers -- although not GTE's practices in particular -- are currently before the Commission in pending proceedings. In any event, PCIA's allegations regarding GTE's practices are too vague to demonstrate a likelihood of unlawful conduct. 70 See 47 C.F.R. � 1.730. 71 BA-NYNEX Order, 12 FCC Rcd. at 20070-76, �� 180-191; 20107-23, Apps. C and D. Other conditions imposed in the BA-NYNEX Order involved pricing of interconnection, transport and termination, and unbundled network elements based on forward-looking economic costs. Id. at 20110-11 (Conditions 5 and 6). At that time, the Commission's pricing rules had been stayed, Iowa Utilities Board v. FCC,
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-860A1.html
  • in a subsequent order. We also recommend that the Commission promptly issue a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking regarding customer retention marketing practices. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Kris Anne Monteith Chief, Enforcement Bureau Formal Complaint, File No. EB-08-MD-002 (filed Feb. 11, 2008) ("Complaint"). 47 U.S.C. S: 208. Before the Complaint was filed, the Enforcement Bureau issued a letter order, pursuant to section 1.730 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 1.730, granting Complainants' request to file a Complaint against Verizon alleging violations of section 222 of the Act on the Commission's Accelerated Docket. See Complaint at Ex. T. See, e.g., Joint Statement, File No. EB-08-MD-002 (filed Feb. 29, 2009) ("Joint Statement") at 3-4, P: 4. The Defendants are: Verizon California Inc.; Verizon Delaware
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/FCC-08-159A1.html
  • in local telephone service. Similarly, today's action ensures that consumers in all areas of the country reap the benefits of competition in the form of lower prices, innovative services and more choice. Bright House Networks, LLC v. Verizon California, Inc., Recommended Decision, File No. EB-08-MD-002, 2008 WL 1722033 (Enf. Bur., rel. Apr. 11, 2008) ("Recommended Decision"). See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.730(i) ("If parties to the proceeding file comments to the recommended decision, the Commission will issue its decision adopting or modifying the recommended decision within 30 days of the filing of the final comments.") Formal Complaint, File No. EB-08-MD-002 (filed Feb. 11, 2008) ("Complaint"). 47 U.S.C. S: 208. 47 U.S.C. S: 222(b). 47 U.S.C. S: 201(b). See Count III of the
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da002245.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da002245.txt
  • 208, and 271, and the authority delegated in sections 0.111, 0.311, and 1.115 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 0.111, 0.311, and 1.115, that AT&T's application for review IS DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE, and that the captioned proceeding IS TERMINATED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Alexander P. Starr Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division Enforcement Bureau 47 U.S.C. � 208. 47 C.F.R. � 1.730. AT&T also originally named BellSouth Corporation and BellSouth Telecommunications, Inc. as defendants. These parties subsequently were dismissed from the litigation. 47 U.S.C. � 271. AT&T Corp. v. BellSouth Corp., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 14 FCC Rcd 8515 (Com. Car. Bur. 1999). Federal Communications Commission DA 00-2245 Federal Communications Commission DA 00-2245 � � � �
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/mdrd/Welcome.html
  • is important to understand that not all cases are suitable for this expedited procedure. The staff, in its discretion, decides which cases to accept on the Accelerated Docket. Matters that are not accepted on the Accelerated Docket may nevertheless be filed under the formal complaint rules described above (47 C.F.R. 1.721-1.736). For further information about this process, refer to section 1.730 of the Commission's rules (47 C.F.R. 1.730), and the Formal Complaint Second Report and Order, which is published in the FCC Record at 13 FCC Rcd 17018 (1998). ------------ Section 224 Complaints: Pole Attachments Section 224 of the Communications Act authorizes the Commission to regulate attachments by cable television systems or providers of telecommunications service to utility poles, ducts, conduits
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/mdrd/rules/1730.html
  • provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 551 et seq. The Federal Communications Commission and the FCC's Enforcement Bureau are not responsible for actions taken or omissions made in reliance on this rule. We recommend that you check the accuracy of the rule below at another source, such as the web site of the Government Printing Office, [1]http://www.gpoaccess.gov/index.html. Sec. 1.730 The Enforcement Bureau's Accelerated Docket. (a) Parties to formal complaint proceedings against common carriers within the responsibility of the Enforcement Bureau (see Secs. 0.111, 0.311, 0.314 of this chapter) may request inclusion on the Bureau's Accelerated Docket. As set out in Secs. 1.720 through 1.736, proceedings on the Accelerated Docket are subject to shorter pleading deadlines and certain other procedural
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/fcc99181.pdf http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/fcc99181.txt http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/fcc99181.wp
  • FCC Rcd at 17024, 10. Federal Communications Commission FCC 99-181 64 Bureau's Enforcement Division.308 Where practicable, such complaint and request may be submitted to the Commission by any reasonable means. The filing must include at a minimum: (1) the information described in sections 1.721-1.724 of our rules and (2) a representation by the complainant that the conditions specified in subsection 1.730 have been met. Complaints accepted for accelerated dispute resolution will be promptly forwarded by the Commission to the named manufacturer or service provider, which shall be called on to answer the complaint in 15 days or such shorter time as the staff may prescribe. Commission staff may, in its discretion, require the complainant and defendant to appear before it, via
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/fcc01029.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/fcc01029.pdf http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/fcc01029.txt
  • not conclude that SWBT's EEL provisioning process runs afoul of the rules set forth in our Supplemental Order Clarification without further evidence that such process cannot be accomplished simply, quickly and without an increased risk of disconnection. We note, however, that e.spire states in its comments that it has initiated a possible enforcement action by requesting, pursuant to Commission Rule 1.730(b), to begin pre-filing settlement negotiations with SWBT, claiming that SWBT has violated the Commission's rules on EELs provisioning. If it is determined on a more developed record that SWBT has indeed violated our UNE rules, we will, in that instance, take the appropriate enforcement action. Checklist Item 4 - Unbundled Local Loops Background Section 271(c)(2)(B)(iv) of the Act, item 4
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/Intl/4361-98.pdf
  • 0.824.2 4.116.0 Netherlands $109,843,68059.9 2.120.1 9.3 8.6 $12,658,66544.6 0.029.8 8.317.2 $6,415,29655.5 0.013.0 0.031.5 403,004,01841.4 5.526.0 7.919.3 Norway $41,309,30463.3 1.624.3 9.3 1.5 $5,327,53143.5 0.023.1 5.527.9 $632,04357.0 0.026.016.4 0.5 142,457,75747.7 6.130.5 8.0 7.8 Portugal $50,022,28358.6 0.231.8 7.9 1.5 $5,013,68658.0 0.021.8 7.812.4 $2,019,52981.0 0.017.7 1.2 0.1 95,087,59255.4 0.524.811.8 7.4 Spain $178,345,32755.9 0.533.7 7.0 2.9 $12,603,02448.9 0.025.2 8.517.3 $6,594,15482.1 0.0 8.8 0.0 9.0 323,517,69846.8 1.730.211.9 9.4 Sweden $51,698,85354.7 3.524.9 9.4 7.5 $6,610,758 6.4 0.235.8 9.148.4 $5,766,02849.444.6 5.2 0.6 0.2 264,813,08231.411.332.7 7.517.0 Switzerland $96,556,85466.6 0.418.8 9.9 4.3 $14,950,78841.0 0.032.9 7.718.5 $515,98571.2 0.024.3 0.3 4.3 302,016,92840.5 1.128.910.818.8 Turkey $99,900,07549.8 0.742.9 5.7 0.9 $10,349,86157.1 0.027.8 7.0 8.1 $2,053,23243.2 0.053.7 0.0 3.1 142,115,73552.0 1.835.3 6.9 4.0 United Kingdom $441,427,40035.4 0.544.115.7 4.3 $110,230,56721.0 0.740.820.317.3 $47,192,854 7.065.4 2.3 8.217.1 1,976,372,15226.3 2.835.520.415.0
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/SOCC/97socc.pdf
  • 202.1 132.6 913.0 0.245 KY LOUISIANA 4,559.7 124.7 4,435.0 3,361.0 1,074.0 716.3 197.5 160.2 1,073.9 0.149 LA MAINE 1,411.0 43.6 1,367.4 1,002.0 365.5 186.9 124.7 53.8 365.5 ME MARYLAND 5,791.2 259.3 5,531.9 3,977.1 1,554.8 737.1 340.9 476.7 1,554.8 MD MASSACHUSETTS 8,357.6 377.3 7,980.2 5,712.3 2,268.0 880.7 765.9 621.3 2,268.0 MA MICHIGAN 9,888.0 263.2 9,624.8 7,434.6 2,190.2 1,274.3 570.4 343.8 2,188.5 1.730 MI MINNESOTA 3,834.3 77.6 3,756.7 2,757.6 999.1 528.3 221.0 249.8 999.1 MN MISSISSIPPI 3,000.5 80.8 2,919.7 2,183.7 736.0 490.4 149.2 95.7 735.3 0.767 MS MISSOURI 6,839.4 259.6 6,579.8 4,748.1 1,831.7 978.4 381.0 471.3 1,830.7 0.976 MO MONTANA 759.7 24.4 735.3 512.2 223.1 117.1 59.7 46.4 223.1 MT NEBRASKA 2,124.1 123.4 2,000.7 1,411.7 589.0 251.1 170.6 166.6 588.3 0.659 NE NEVADA
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Wireless/Comments/fcc98055/210090-3.pdf
  • within three days of the answer to respond to affirmative defenses, (given the complexity of the "readily achievable" standard). Indeed, no response should be required to affirmative defenses. Rather, the validity of the affirmative defenses should be resolved through the complaint proceeding itself. As suggested above, records must be maintained and produced if the complaint process is to work. Section 1.730(h) should make it clear that complainants have an absolute right to such documentary materials in the Section 255 process. Finally, Section 1.733 rules need to be modified so that they do not place an unreasonable burden on disabled individuals, and so that the critical transcripts and recordings are themselves accessible. IV. CONCLUSION. AFR's Comments have focused on areas where it
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Wireless/Orders/1999/fcc99022.pdf http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Wireless/Orders/1999/fcc99022.txt http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Wireless/Orders/1999/fcc99022.wp
  • against GTE. PCIA Comments at 3. We note that issues regarding the charges that LECs may permissibly impose on paging carriers -- although not GTE's practices in particular -- are currently before the Commission in pending proceedings. In any event, PCIA's allegations regarding GTE's practices are too vague to demonstrate a likelihood of unlawful conduct. 70 See 47 C.F.R. � 1.730. 71 BA-NYNEX Order, 12 FCC Rcd. at 20070-76, �� 180-191; 20107-23, Apps. C and D. Other conditions imposed in the BA-NYNEX Order involved pricing of interconnection, transport and termination, and unbundled network elements based on forward-looking economic costs. Id. at 20110-11 (Conditions 5 and 6). At that time, the Commission's pricing rules had been stayed, Iowa Utilities Board v. FCC,
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-860A1.html
  • in a subsequent order. We also recommend that the Commission promptly issue a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking regarding customer retention marketing practices. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Kris Anne Monteith Chief, Enforcement Bureau Formal Complaint, File No. EB-08-MD-002 (filed Feb. 11, 2008) ("Complaint"). 47 U.S.C. S: 208. Before the Complaint was filed, the Enforcement Bureau issued a letter order, pursuant to section 1.730 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 1.730, granting Complainants' request to file a Complaint against Verizon alleging violations of section 222 of the Act on the Commission's Accelerated Docket. See Complaint at Ex. T. See, e.g., Joint Statement, File No. EB-08-MD-002 (filed Feb. 29, 2009) ("Joint Statement") at 3-4, P: 4. The Defendants are: Verizon California Inc.; Verizon Delaware
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da002245.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da002245.txt
  • 208, and 271, and the authority delegated in sections 0.111, 0.311, and 1.115 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 0.111, 0.311, and 1.115, that AT&T's application for review IS DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE, and that the captioned proceeding IS TERMINATED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Alexander P. Starr Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division Enforcement Bureau 47 U.S.C. � 208. 47 C.F.R. � 1.730. AT&T also originally named BellSouth Corporation and BellSouth Telecommunications, Inc. as defendants. These parties subsequently were dismissed from the litigation. 47 U.S.C. � 271. AT&T Corp. v. BellSouth Corp., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 14 FCC Rcd 8515 (Com. Car. Bur. 1999). Federal Communications Commission DA 00-2245 Federal Communications Commission DA 00-2245 � � � �
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/mdrd/Welcome.html
  • is important to understand that not all cases are suitable for this expedited procedure. The staff, in its discretion, decides which cases to accept on the Accelerated Docket. Matters that are not accepted on the Accelerated Docket may nevertheless be filed under the formal complaint rules described above (47 C.F.R. 1.721-1.736). For further information about this process, refer to section 1.730 of the Commission's rules (47 C.F.R. 1.730), and the Formal Complaint Second Report and Order, which is published in the FCC Record at 13 FCC Rcd 17018 (1998). ------------ Section 224 Complaints: Pole Attachments Section 224 of the Communications Act authorizes the Commission to regulate attachments by cable television systems or providers of telecommunications service to utility poles, ducts, conduits
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/mdrd/rules/1730.html
  • provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 551 et seq. The Federal Communications Commission and the FCC's Enforcement Bureau are not responsible for actions taken or omissions made in reliance on this rule. We recommend that you check the accuracy of the rule below at another source, such as the web site of the Government Printing Office, [1]http://www.gpoaccess.gov/index.html. Sec. 1.730 The Enforcement Bureau's Accelerated Docket. (a) Parties to formal complaint proceedings against common carriers within the responsibility of the Enforcement Bureau (see Secs. 0.111, 0.311, 0.314 of this chapter) may request inclusion on the Bureau's Accelerated Docket. As set out in Secs. 1.720 through 1.736, proceedings on the Accelerated Docket are subject to shorter pleading deadlines and certain other procedural